PDA

View Full Version : A theory



Froogleyboy
2009-05-31, 04:01 PM
Ok I was thinking, People keep saying that 4E is to simple compared to 3.5. BUT so is 2E and 1E. So if 3E and 3.5 never existed, 4E would be more popular. Comments?

Satyr
2009-05-31, 04:07 PM
I really don't think that simplicity is that much of a negative criterium. I would even say, that a complex system necessarily require a simple and streamlined core mechanism, or else it becomes mostly convoluted. The problem I have with D&D 4 is not that it is simple. The problem I have is that it treats the potential players like morons who need to be taken by the hand and treated as if they were unable to cope with things like options and an interconnection between crunch and fluff. But that's just me, and certainly not a majority position.
I like games that respect my intelligence.

yilduz
2009-05-31, 04:14 PM
I really don't think that simplicity is that much of a negative criterium. I would even say, that a complex system necessarily require a simple and streamlined core mechanism, or else it becomes mostly convoluted. The problem I have with D&D 4 is not that it is simple. The problem I have is that it treats the potential players like morons who need to be taken by the hand and treated as if they were unable to cope with things like options and an interconnection between crunch and fluff. But that's just me, and certainly not a majority position.
I like games that respect my intelligence.

I think they're on board with the current generation of video game consoles. They're aiming at the casual gamers that may not be as nerdy intelligent as some of us.

Morty
2009-05-31, 04:25 PM
I really don't think that simplicity is that much of a negative criterium. I would even say, that a complex system necessarily require a simple and streamlined core mechanism, or else it becomes mostly convoluted. The problem I have with D&D 4 is not that it is simple. The problem I have is that it treats the potential players like morons who need to be taken by the hand and treated as if they were unable to cope with things like options and an interconnection between crunch and fluff. But that's just me, and certainly not a majority position.
I like games that respect my intelligence.

For what it's worth, I agree.
And I don't really know what do you mean by saying that 4ed would be "more popular". It's already popular. That, and I'm not exactly an expert on older D&D editions, but I think they were simpler than 3.5 in a different way than 4ed is.

Eldariel
2009-05-31, 04:30 PM
And I don't really know what do you mean by saying that 4ed would be "more popular".

That it would be more popular than it is. That many more 3.5 players would be switching over if that were the case. Chances are, 3.5 would be becoming the edition of choice for small fringe groups, much like what happened to AD&D 2nd Edition over the few years after 3.0's release.

Instead, masses are preferring 3.5 over 4.0. Both have their players, but 3.5 players clearly didn't convert as wholly as they could have, and as the systems are so different, 4.0 isn't really replacing 3.5 as much as being used side-by-side with it.

SurlySeraph
2009-05-31, 04:35 PM
3E's complexity is because there are rules provided for virtually everything in one sourcebook or another. 2E's complexity is because the mechanics weren't very internally consistent ("Wait, do I want to roll high or low on this? Why do all the stats give different modifiers for different values, and why does Strength have more possible values then the others?")

afroakuma
2009-05-31, 04:50 PM
From a non-crunch standpoint, 4E also largely negated - I use "negated" here in place of "raped" - the continuity and evolution of story material, campaign settings, traditional monsters, spells and characters. I, for one, found it extremely discomfiting.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-31, 05:28 PM
3.X "rewards rules mastery", meaning that if you spend hours upon hours pouring over sourcebooks, you can potentially make an imaginary dude way more awesome than your friend's imaginary dude. Essentially, Dungeons & Dragons: The Gathering. 4E seems less geared towards powergamers.

Of course, 4E has less options for cheese and for everything else because it hasn't been around as long as 3E, and thus hasn't produced as copious an amount of splatbooks. We can certainly expect to see both power creep and a broader array of fantasy archetypes as the product line grows.

And, yeah, they went and nuked a bunch of fluff, thereby aliening a bunch of people who had come to like existing settings as they were. A lot of concepts have been significantly tweaked, which is to say that they've piled on yet more retcons.

They seem to be targeting players dissatisfied with older material rather than players who liked it, probably on the theory that a bunch of players who liked older editions will stick with them no matter what they put out.

Grynning
2009-05-31, 05:31 PM
As much as I hate edition wars (I like both systems, I just happen to be playing 4e exclusively at the moment), I have to weigh in on this one.

I disagree with people's characterization of 4th edition as overly simplified and video-game like. It's a game rich with options and decisions, especially with all the supplemental material that's been published at this point, and it's definitely not "easier" than 3rd edition by any means. Combat is actually much more difficult for the players, as tactics matter considerably more than they did in 3rd, where characters could be cheesed to the point of auto-winning any encounter. It definitely requires very smart players and DMs. The fact that the rules are more unified and specific than 3rd ed's isn't an insult to the players' intelligence; it's a response to the many, many balance complaints and rules snafus (Pun-Pun, infinite damage punch Crusaders, etc) that can be leveled against 3rd.

Yes, it doesn't have the broad range of character classes and multi-classing options of 3rd, and it lacks all of the simulationist elements, but that hardly makes it inferior as a role-playing game. We RP quite heavily in one of my games, not so much in the other, but that's more of a playstyle thing than a rules thing.

Dixieboy
2009-05-31, 05:33 PM
From a non-crunch standpoint, 4E also largely negated - I use "negated" here in place of "raped" - the continuity and evolution of story material, campaign settings, traditional monsters, spells and characters. I, for one, found it extremely discomfiting.
... they managed to screw forgotten realms up, even more than what it was already.

That's gotta be some kind of achievement.

Grynning
2009-05-31, 05:36 PM
... they managed to screw forgotten realms up, even more than what it was already.

That's gotta be some kind of achievement.

I would add that complaints about changes to meta-plot and story material for the 4th ed books have little to do with the system itself. I think Wizards had noticed that most groups change the meta-plot or completely homebrew settings anyways, so they were less concerned with those elements in 4th.

Sir Homeslice
2009-05-31, 05:37 PM
... they managed to screw forgotten realms up, even more than what it was already.

That's gotta be some kind of achievement.

No, they made FR actually bearable.

valadil
2009-05-31, 06:10 PM
I really don't think that simplicity is that much of a negative criterium. I would even say, that a complex system necessarily require a simple and streamlined core mechanism, or else it becomes mostly convoluted. The problem I have with D&D 4 is not that it is simple. The problem I have is that it treats the potential players like morons who need to be taken by the hand and treated as if they were unable to cope with things like options and an interconnection between crunch and fluff. But that's just me, and certainly not a majority position.
I like games that respect my intelligence.

I can certainly see how you'd feel that way from reading up on 4e. There aren't as many options for building characters. What I like better about 4e is that you get back those options in game play. 3rd ed fighter types always bored me because the tactical choices were limited to charge vs full attack and possibly trying to flank. A 1st level 4e melee character gets more options than that, so I'd rather play one.

At any rate, I'm glad that 4e is an entirely different system instead of an upgrade. As an entirely different system, it needs to be, well, different. And people are gonna have their preferences as to which they like better. I don't think its a matter of the new system being easier or harder, but a matter of the new system not being the old system. I'm playing a lot of 4e right now, but I have no plans to sell off my 3.5 books either.

erikun
2009-05-31, 06:56 PM
Ok I was thinking, People keep saying that 4E is to simple compared to 3.5. BUT so is 2E and 1E. So if 3E and 3.5 never existed, 4E would be more popular. Comments?

From what I've seen over the months, complexity has nothing to do with it. Yes, people do complain about 4e being simpler or gamelike, but almost every conversation I've heard has gone through the same complaints.

3e, as different as it was, was supposed to be a conversion of 2e. BAB, saving throws, caster level, etc. were supposed to replicate the 2e system and simplify it into a d20 + bonus style. The success in doing so is best left to another thread (unless you want a 2e-3e discussion here :smalltongue:) but that was the basic idea behind the change.

4e is not supposed to be a conversion of 3e. 4e is intented as an entirely new system, with the material from earlier editions then translated into the new system. Most of the "anti-4e" crowd doesn't like this conversion, either because they dislike the changes in mechanics ("to WoW-like!") or the changes in official storylines ("I don't like what they did to Forgotten Realms.") or the changes preventing older, previously playable creations (no more CoDZilla).

Now, don't think that a new system is a bad thing; other game systems have gone through a similar process and survived. I know that Star Wars, at least, has gone from a d6 die pool to a d20 system. Also, I wouln't think of the anti-4e crowd as whining - they do have their reasons for disliking the change. I'd personally prefer hearing less whining everywhere, but I'm as likely to get that as free 4e sourcebooks delivered to my house. :smalltongue:

Back to your question: No, I don't think 4e would be more popular if it appeared directly after 2e. Heck, have you seen the anti-3e commentary from back in 2000? I'm going to give the 4e system a few years before deciding on how "popular" the system ultamitely becomes, so I can't really give you an opinion right now. There's really far more factors than just "4e is simple" to look at, after all.

Doc Roc
2009-05-31, 07:04 PM
[scrubbed]

Bad mood, sorry about that.

Dixieboy
2009-06-01, 02:49 AM
No, they made FR actually bearable.
No, no they did not, and it would be good if you did not suggest such a thing. :smallannoyed:

Satyr
2009-06-01, 03:21 AM
What's so bad about the new Forgotten Realms edition? (No sarcasm intended, I have just heard so many complaints about it without knowing what the actual issues are)

Ellye
2009-06-01, 03:27 AM
It doesn't matter what previous edition was, it doesn't matter what the new edition is.
People will always complain about change. This is natural.

Doc Roc
2009-06-01, 03:34 AM
The dark side of the free market economy is a pathway to many abilities that some might consider to be.....


Unnatural.

Satyr
2009-06-01, 03:39 AM
That is not helpful perspective. There are changes to the better, and there are changes for the worse. Yes, it is impossible to make changes everyone is happy with, but that doesn't mean that every change is equally well thought of and equally well implemented. Or plainly said: There are changes which make harsh critique completely worthy - or even necessary.

bosssmiley
2009-06-01, 03:44 AM
Ok I was thinking, People keep saying that 4E is to simple compared to 3.5. BUT so is 2E and 1E.

0E-2E are mechanically simple because they are a series of snap-on parts added to a basic mechanical chassis. 3E & 4E both hunt the snark of mechanical universality and end up embroiled in their own contradictions and inadequacies.


So if 3E and 3.5 never existed, 4E would be more popular. Comments?

Mu (http://www.retrologic.com/jargon/M/mu.html).

Without 3E there would be no 4E. 4E is the end result of being given a "think the unthinkable" mandate to try and fix perceived problems with 3E.

Unfortunately the designers were a) subject to executive meddling, b) divided over what this elephant thing actually was (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/1/?letter=B&spage=3), and c) all really high at the time.

Hence in the place of the simplicity and elegance many of the previews promised (I believed 4E had potential, once upon a time) we were given:

skill challenge fail
illusion of player choice
reward entitlement
the "Everything is Core!" mantra
pay-per-view preview material(!)
the idea that adventure = encounters,
and a heaping helping of "This is Year 0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(political_notion))! Hail the new flesh!" disregard of 30+ years of system experimentation and accumulated gamer culture.

Good going WOTC. Way to break a loyal fanbase into fissiparous shrapnel. :smallannoyed:

Morty
2009-06-01, 07:10 AM
What's so bad about the new Forgotten Realms edition? (No sarcasm intended, I have just heard so many complaints about it without knowing what the actual issues are)

Not that I know much about it, as I haven't been following it closely, but people's beef with 4ed FR is mainly that it's not FR anymore. WoTC has killed half of the rich pantheon and generally turned the setting inside-out either to hammer it into 4ed mechanics and fluff or just for kicks. It's Forgotten Realms for those who don't like Forgotten Realms. That, and FR Wikipedia is a mess right now.

Dhavaer
2009-06-01, 07:14 AM
Not that I know much about it, as I haven't been following it closely, but people's beef with 4ed FR is mainly that it's not FR anymore. WoTC has killed half of the rich pantheon and generally turned the setting inside-out either to hammer it into 4ed mechanics and fluff or just for kicks. It's Forgotten Realms for those who don't like Forgotten Realms. That, and FR Wikipedia is a mess right now.

The bolded is the impression I've gotten, as someone who doesn't like Forgotten Realms.

prufock
2009-06-01, 07:23 AM
People are saying 4e is too simple? Maybe I'm completely out of touch with the "gaming community," and granted I haven't switched to 4e yet, but simplicity in gaming is, to me, a good thing. Frankly, one of the things about 3.5 that bothers me is that it isn't simple enough. I think that's part of why I like M&M so much.

Zeta Kai
2009-06-01, 08:08 AM
My qualms with 4E have to do with the non-combat parts of the game, namely the lack of non-combat parts of the game. The entire game's fixation on Combat & Balance, to the exclusion of all else, is what keeps me from enjoying the game in any meaningful way. The fights & tactics are great, but there's no in-game context, because there are almost no non-fight-related abilities, skills, feats, fluff, monsters, spells, etc. If it's not about killing the enemy &/or taking their stuff, it's just not there. The designers of 4E are one record for removing these elements deliberately & categorically, changing the game's dynamic in a radical way that hasn't been seen since the early 1970's. Before 4E, a player could suggest any course of action that you could imagine, & it could be accomplished in some way, through some application of the rules. With 4E, I've seen several DMs simply unable to say anything to a player other than "the rules say you can't do that" or "there's no rule for that".

Don't get me wrong, I think 4E's combat options are balanced & tactically interesting. But so were the rules for Chainmail & other wargames. That doesn't make for a complete/flexible roleplaying experience. And 3E & other editions are very combat-centric, but you could do other stuff, too. This isn't the case in 4E; if you aren't fighting, you're literally not playing the game the right way.

I don't dislike people who, for whatever reason, enjoy 4E. But ultimately it is undeniable that it is a radically different experience from what we have been playing for the last 30 years or so, & it's not an experience that I am interested in the having to the exclusion of all else. It may be the best tactical combat game in the history of the genre, but that doesn't make it a roleplaying game, & that doesn't make it a game that I want to play.

Matthew
2009-06-01, 08:29 AM
The fights & tactics are great, but there's no in-game context, because there are almost no non-fight-related abilities, skills, feats, fluff, monsters, spells, etc. If it's not about killing the enemy &/or taking their stuff, it's just not there. The designers of 4E are one record for removing these elements deliberately & categorically, changing the game's dynamic in a radical way that hasn't been seen since the early 1970's. Before 4E, a player could suggest any course of action that you could imagine, & it could be accomplished in some way, through some application of the rules. With 4E, I've seen several DMs simply unable to say anything to a player other than "the rules say you can't do that" or "there's no rule for that".

Those sound like really bad game masters, handicapped by their D20 experience and unable to function without the shackles of a rules heavy game. Well, that is how I would look at it anyway. :smallwink:



Don't get me wrong, I think 4E's combat options are balanced & tactically interesting. But so were the rules for Chainmail & other wargames. That doesn't make for a complete/flexible roleplaying experience. And 3E & other editions are very combat-centric, but you could do other stuff, too. This isn't the case in 4E; if you aren't fighting, you're literally not playing the game the right way.

I don't dislike people who, for whatever reason, enjoy 4E. But ultimately it is undeniable that it is a radically different experience from what we have been playing for the last 30 years or so, & it's not an experience that I am interested in the having to the exclusion of all else. It may be the best tactical combat game in the history of the genre, but that doesn't make it a roleplaying game, & that doesn't make it a game that I want to play.

I do not agree with this assessment at all. The real change for D&D came in 2000. Prior to that the game was by no means as rules bound as it became, and D20/4e has put a lot more of the responsibility for task resolution back into the hands of the game master. It is totally inaccurate to see D20/4e as a more significant departure from the post 1979 AD&D/D&D continuum than D20/3e. They simply depart in different ways.

Where D20/3e keeps much of the basic mechanics of TSR D&D, it overcomplicates, misunderstands and corrupts them beyond superficial similarity. D20/4e chucks away a great many of the basic mechanics, but also a lot of the complicated stuff. It shows a much greater interest in reducing the degree to which the rules control the game experience. D20/4e is further away mechanically from TSR D&D than D20/3e, but closer in its design ethic.

Animefunkmaster
2009-06-01, 08:39 AM
Ok I was thinking, People keep saying that 4E is to simple compared to 3.5. BUT so is 2E and 1E. So if 3E and 3.5 never existed, 4E would be more popular. Comments?

I think the general critique of 4e isn't so much that it is simpler, but most things (within a given party role) play out nearly the same way. Slide, fullround or move, standard power, minor power (or mark) and so on. With powers pretty much centered on HP damage with different modifiers/defense rolls. To be honest, I never really understood how much I enjoyed having psionics and magic as different mechanics from being a regular warrior, until playing 4e. The mechanics wheren't specifically that much different, abilities per day with varying strengths based on the abilities level and your level VS abilities that are used by spending points (that recharge per day) with more points being spent to generally make stronger abilities. Sure its all in the flavor of the game that makes it fun, and 4e is on a path to include nearly every power source 3.X had. However the textual feel of the various classes seem to be lackluster by comparison.

Also, 1st, 2nd edition, and Advanced DnD aren't specifically simpler, just that the rules are far more open ended, while 4e is much more thought out. Some people enjoy more open ended rules, but a general critique is that it hurts game balance. One thing that can be said to 4Es credit is it is a more balanced version of DnD then any before it. Again, though, the balance comes at a price of everything plays out in a similar fashion than before.

On the topic of popularity, I don't have the specifics in front of me, but from my experience with the game it seems newer editions are generally more popular than there previous. Its hard to find people who know of the small booklets of 1st edition to play a game, or players who want to play 2nd, adnd (thac0 VS bab) over 3rd. 4E seems to be progressing along with trends as normal, granted it is very new, so time will tell its popularity.

I for one, think that the major stumbling block of DnD isn't so much people who play Table Top, its the stereotype created by Chick Hurn and others who categorized the game as a tool to worship Satan or other Demonic forces. Oddly enough, I would have expected people who were into that kind of stuff to be playing it. But as time goes on people start to try the game out, and either enjoy it or slowly disregard the idea it is evil instruments. This is a chief reason why DnD has become more popular, imho.

Llama231
2009-06-01, 08:57 AM
The way that I think of it is comparing it to smash:
3.X is Melee and 4e is Brawl.
Although Brawl seems to be getting more popular...

Morty
2009-06-01, 09:05 AM
The bolded is the impression I've gotten, as someone who doesn't like Forgotten Realms.

And I've got that impression as someone who does like Forgotten Realms. So it's most likely true.

CheshireCatAW
2009-06-01, 09:26 AM
What's so bad about the new Forgotten Realms edition? (No sarcasm intended, I have just heard so many complaints about it without knowing what the actual issues are)

In spoilers so as to try to not derail the thread.

The primary reasons stem from the massive changes to just about every level of the FR. They've moved the setting up long enough for most characters of average human lifespan to die off (either naturally or through disappearing after battles/disasters/pie bake offs/etc).

They've also shifted the setting itself more from a high-fantasy amalgamation of a million things, to a points-of-light in darkness. This was achieved by killing off characters in some places or destroying cities or parts of cities in others and generally rewriting history.

The death of pantheons of gods is a sore point for me, particularly. I liked having a hundred different gods. I thought each god had character unto themselves. (Another issue I have is the way that most of the gods were killed)

A major problem for me was the complete absense of certain locations in the Players Guide. I realize that some locations may fall through the cracks, but I believe it was done so they could garner more subscriptions for their Insider service, as I'm certain that's where they will be unveiled.

There are more reasons, but those are the ones that jump out at me. In all, it feels like the Players Guide, Campaign Setting and Grand History of the Realsms (and I mean these as combined, not separate books) seem like poor children compared to the 3.0 Campaign Setting or even the 3.5 Players Guide to Faerun. No subraces (except in feats), less actual history, larger print, less geographic information and less detailed focus all-around. As it was said before, it feels like the FR after someone who didn't like the FR toyed around with it instead of making a different setting.

Rebonack
2009-06-01, 10:03 AM
To the opening post, I would say 'Maybe'.

The rules aren't as constraining in 4.0 and there's more emphasis on what you do in game than there is on the mechanical aspect of character building. While 4.0 is mechanically much different from the Ye Olde editions it stays true to their spirit.

So people would just be complaining about the mechanical changes rather than complaining about mechanical and overall game focus changes. Does less complaining mean more people enjoying it? No idea.

Personally I favor having a system that gives some core rules for combat and leaves everything else wide open to direct game master control and player imagination. The absence of crafting rules doesn't mean players can't craft things, it just means that it's irrelevant to game balance and should therefore be made up as you go.

There are a few things I don't like about 4.0, but they're all quite easy to fix. Simple tweaks and add-ons are all that's necessary. Trying to get 3.X to function, especially at higher levels, is an absolute nightmare given players that have any idea what they're doing. One need only look at the plentiful 'Wizards own everything' threads to find reasons why.

It's a difference in focus, really. 3.x is more heavily focused on character creation, making a PC that can steam-roll the opposition whether it be through arcane might, shattering moons with a thrown boulder, or turning everyone into a fanatic with diplomancy. While there are plenty of choices the majority of them are pitifully sub-optimal and the simplest of things are barred. Want to make a fighter who composes beautiful war-ballads? Sorry, Perform is cross class. Want to make a fighter who is relevant at high level? Sorry, you picked the wrong class.

The focus in 4.0 is on what you can do after character creation. Not only does your party fighter have more options in combat than he did in 3.x, but now he can compose those glorious war-ballads you always wanted him to but couldn't due to Perform being cross-class. He can create magic weapons given a few minutes chat with the game master and a feat or two. But all this is at the expense of PCs in the same class being very mechanically similar. Want a fighter with combat skills drastically different from everyone elses fighter? Sorry. But at least he's got a great singing voice now!

The gameplay focus is so different between the games that tensions are bound to (and did) arise. But given that the earlier versions had focus similar to 4.0 (low character build options, wide open game-play) I don't think the back-lash would have been quite as harsh had 3.x been cut out.

Zeta Kai
2009-06-01, 10:07 AM
Those sound like really bad game masters, handicapped by their D20 experience and unable to function without the shackles of a rules heavy game. Well, that is how I would look at it anyway. :smallwink:

I don't disagree that what you say may be the case. But the fact of the matter is that if you want to appraise an item in 3E, there's a skill for that. If you want to forge a sword, there's a skill for that. If you want to tie somebody up, there's a skill for that.

But in 4E? There are no rules to govern the success or failure of any of those actions. It's up to the DM to make a judgment call, with no assistance of the rulebooks, on how those actions should be handled. This scenario is quite similar to what happened in 2E: DMs had no rulebook that covered certain common actions, so they made their own house rules, which often swelled to the point that they outweighed the printed rules. That meant that anyone playing 2E at one table was playing a different game than the guys at the next table.

3E addressed this very well by covering just about any conceivable action with (semi-)unified mechanics. 4E does not do this by any means; if you wanna do something that is unrelated to combat, your DM is likely going to be forced to either deny the action or make up something on the spot. If I wanna make up rules & rattle off judgment calls on the spot, there's a thousand other game systems that I could use (FUDGE is great for this), or use nothing at all & just freeform everything. But when I've played D&D for the last 15 years, I've always been able to turn to the books for a ruleset governing the actions my players want to perform. With 4E, the answers to those questions are largely gone if they don't involve pummeling orcs & dragons (or, as they are now known, bloodreaper orcs & fleshrender dragons :smallannoyed:).


I do not agree with this assessment at all. The real change for D&D came in 2000. Prior to that the game was by no means as rules bound as it became, and D20/4e has put a lot more of the responsibility for task resolution back into the hands of the game master. It is totally inaccurate to see D20/4e as a more significant departure from the post 1979 AD&D/D&D continuum than D20/3e. They simply depart in different ways.

Where D20/3e keeps much of the basic mechanics of TSR D&D, it overcomplicates, misunderstands and corrupts them beyond superficial similarity. D20/4e chucks away a great many of the basic mechanics, but also a lot of the complicated stuff. It shows a much greater interest in reducing the degree to which the rules control the game experience. D20/4e is further away mechanically from TSR D&D than D20/3e, but closer in its design ethic.

And I disagree with you, as well, so we're even. First of all, there's no such thing as D20/4E. Yes, 4E uses a d20, but the D20 system is the ruleset that pertains to 3E, & 4E is nothing like it. The two are about the same as GURPS & FUDGE, which both use d6's.

Also, I think I stand on firm semantic ground when I claim that 4E is a completely different game than 3E & everything that came before it. And that it's the biggest change in the rules since Chainmail. The terminology is different. The level scale is different. The roles are different. The combat system is different. The magic system is different. I could go on & on & on about the differences, but it's easier to point out the similarities, because they are so few. As a person who is very busy right now trying to make a 3E/4E project mutually compatibly, I know for a fact that the mechanically, the two systems could not be more different, & conversion is usually reduced to "In Name Only" translations. And as a person that has updated material from 2E/1E, I can say that 3E isn't that far off from those old systems. You may love 4E's changes, or hate them, but to say that they aren't there or that they aren't as significant as previous changes is ludicrous.


Various astute assessments

That's about where I am on FR as well. It's a crying shame, too.

I know some people don't like FR, but you have to admit, it's one of the most detailed & fleshed out campaign settings ever, & now its entire world has been irrevocably changed. Entire nations have fallen, cities & cultures destroyed, characters have been killed by the dozens hundreds thousands, the pantheon has been largely replaced, & the feel of the setting has been radically shifted. It's an entirely different setting now, for good or ill.

The funny thing is, I discovered all of this while I was reading the 3.0 setting guide for the first time. I'm almost done with it, but now it feels like I'm reading a tourist's guide to Hiroshima printed in July, 1945.

Matthew
2009-06-01, 10:20 AM
But when I've played D&D for the last 15 years, I've always been able to turn to the books for a ruleset governing the actions my players want to perform. With 4E, the answers to those questions are largely gone if they don't involve pummeling orcs & dragons (or, as they are now known, bloodreaper orcs & fleshrender dragons :smallannoyed:).

Fifteen years? So, since 1994? This makes no sense to me. What is the significance of that date? Surely the universal task resolution method was a D20/3e invention.



And I disagree with you, as well, so we're even. First of all, there's no such thing as D20/4E. Yes, 4E uses a d20, but the D20 system is the ruleset that pertains to 3E, & 4E is nothing like it. The two are about the same as GURPS & FUDGE, which both use d6's.

Sounds like an unreconcilable disagreement to me; the core universal task resolution mechanic of D20/4e looks very much the same as that of D20/3e. There are lots of differences to be sure, but it's as much a D20 game as True20 or what have you.



Also, I think I stand on firm semantic ground when I claim that 4E is a completely different game than 3E & everything that came before it. And that it's the biggest change in the rules since Chainmail. The terminology is different. The level scale is different. The roles are different. The combat system is different. The magic system is different. I could go on & on & on about the differences, but it's easier to point out the similarities, because they are so few. As a person who is very busy right now trying to make a 3E/4E project mutually compatibly, I know for a fact that the mechanically, the two systems could not be more different, & conversion is usually reduced to "In Name Only" translations. And as a person that has updated material from 2E/1E, I can say that 3E isn't that far off from those old systems. You may love 4E's changes, or hate them, but to say that they aren't there or that they aren't as significant as previous changes is ludicrous.

As I say, mechanically D20/3e is closer to TSR D&D than D20/4e, but in terms of design ethic D20/4e is much closer. That said, D20/3e is still miles away from the mechanics of TSR D&D. I have also had to convert stuff back and forth between D20 and D&D, and it was typically a pointless effort. In most cases you were far better off making up something that echoed the idea, and that strikes me as the same as converting between D20/3e and D20/4e.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-01, 11:15 AM
Ok I was thinking, People keep saying that 4E is to simple compared to 3.5. BUT so is 2E and 1E. So if 3E and 3.5 never existed, 4E would be more popular. Comments?

The outcry that 4E should be named something other than Dungeons & Dragons would be louder. How could the jump from 2E to 4E seem anything else than a brand new game?

Zeta Kai
2009-06-01, 12:29 PM
The outcry that 4E should be named something other than Dungeons & Dragons would be louder. How could the jump from 2E to 4E seem anything else than a brand new game?

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the loud roar for calling 4E something else. It's deafening. :smallwink:

And Matthew, I respect your opinion, & in some cases I can even see your point. But my experience & viewpoint differ greatly from yours on this issue, & I doubt either one of us will "see the light". Also, 1994 is significant only to me: it was the year that I first started playing AD&D. In that context, the sentence works.

shadzar
2009-06-01, 12:54 PM
Ok I was thinking, People keep saying that 4E is to simple compared to 3.5. BUT so is 2E and 1E. So if 3E and 3.5 never existed, 4E would be more popular. Comments?

4th had a goal of simplification, but in actuality the game was made more complex by the more defined rules. 3.5 may have had a lot of rules, but plenty of wiggle room still for people to do things. Some feel like it closes off many avenues to 4th edition and feels "simple" because there isn't much you can do. Pretty much you play one way as defined by the rules in 4th.

2nd pretty much was more complex, but much better organized than 1st. Gary wrote well and had plenty of good things to say, but the books themselves are hell to find anything in even after all these decades of using them.

As for 3.x, I have only heard arguements about whether it was needed or not and 3.5 being more broken or such and don't really know much about 3.0, so cannot comment on any actual things there.

I think the major problems 4th is having is as follows:

3.x people that didn't play prior are seeing what happened from 2nd-> 3.0 and how they were just thrown to the wayside. That hurts the game when it doesn't offer anything for you are a valued loyal customer.

Also, 4th is really a different game with some D&D skin on it. When most people choose an RPG they choose it for a few reasons, among them are genre, ruleset, playstyle. 4th edition divorced itself from 2 of those things, and probably many other things. Saying it is a new game is being generous. If you look at it this way then take 2 RPGs with different ruleset and pick them based on that. Which games rules you would want to play with. Warhammer 40k has a great ruleset, but it would work as an RPG to have platoons of 50 infantry under your control as an Imperial Guard commander. So if you weren't looking for that kind of play in an RPG, then you wouldn't play it and may have went to D&D all those long years ago.

4th does just that for D&D. It takes an established ruleset that is favored by its players, and discards it. This makes it a whole new game with just an old name stuck to it.

4th edition would not have been taken lightly at all considering the changes it made to the D&D game. It might not have had such a strong following initially without the D&D name stuck onto it, but could be a game viewed better by everyone if it didn't hold the D&D components by the short curlies, and had another name. It may have taken a while, but the new game in the 4th-system would have been picked up if the game system was really what people were wanting rather than a product with the D&D name.

3.x has no real bearing on the popularity of 4th, because 3.x players are not the only ones concerned with 4th edition and what it implies for D&D. They may have had a bigger showing online with the latest advances of technology versus prior editions and the smaller choices for voicing yourself online, but they are not the only reasons 4th may not be seeing the popularity that many may think it should have.

The biggest problem was that 4th truly was designed for people that didn't like D&D to begin with. It was designed and aimed at MMO players as admitted by Bill S, and a few other WotC personnel. They went a totally different route and aimed for a different target audience, and it could be showing signs of wear already where that audience was not really wanting what a tabletop RPG had to offer.

It did keep some people that liked D&D around with the name D&D on it, and gained some new people because they like the simpler rules to start, but the long run will show what the true popularity of it is.

One thing to note is how long it has been going on and even those that feel 4th is popular, or at least popular with them don't like large parts of it or how it is treated.

4th should have been a different game than D&D and it would have done everyone more good. It could have earned its popularity that way by being an upstart game trying to take the place of D&D, rather than trying to build a "brand" out of D&D, rather than using the existing "brand" that D&D had been for 30+ years. Which is really its major flaw as previously noted.

So i the long run the thing hurting 4th editions popularity is 4th edition as it stands against its own history and spits in that histories face. All previous editions existing are what hurts 4ths popularity.

Matthew
2009-06-01, 01:14 PM
And Matthew, I respect your opinion, & in some cases I can even see your point. But my experience & viewpoint differ greatly from yours on this issue, & I doubt either one of us will "see the light".

No worries, just voicing an alternative viewpoint. The bit that felt least "D&D" to me when playing D20/4e was the combat, very jarring. My experience of most of the non-combat elements was that they had a pretty similar feel to TSR D&D. As I say, I have nothing against either incarnation of D20, they are just not for me.



Also, 1994 is significant only to me: it was the year that I first started playing AD&D. In that context, the sentence works.

Understood, I thought of that a few minutes later. :smallbiggrin:

ken-do-nim
2009-06-01, 11:23 PM
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the loud roar for calling 4E something else. It's deafening. :smallwink:


Heh, see the next post in the thread after yours. :smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2009-06-01, 11:46 PM
That meant that anyone playing 2E at one table was playing a different game than the guys at the next table.

I'm sorry, could you elucidate why this is a bad thing? I mean, how often are two groups of people going to game together for a conflict to arise? When you're at table A, you use these rules. When you're at table B, you use those rules. Yeah, they're effectively "different games", but I wouldn't expect to use the same ruleset if Table A was running Deadlands and Table B was running L5R. After all, they're "different games".

CheshireCatAW
2009-06-02, 08:54 AM
I think the problem arises when you find you like a build, or perhaps just a power or feat, yet without a more spelled-out mechanical support to go with it, two (or more) different DM's might have wildly different rulings on what you are capable of. Depending on those rulings or houserules, the concept you have of your character (which may be entirely reasonable to you) may not work at all in practice.

There's no real problem with the fact that there are two different games of the same system being played. That happens all the time with houserules and the like. The problem lies in familiarity and ease of use for players that might change games on a regular basis. It's simply conducive to play to have a common ruleset for common encounters.

Tengu_temp
2009-06-02, 09:02 AM
I think they're on board with the current generation of video game consoles. They're aiming at the casual gamers that may not be as nerdy intelligent as some of us.

So you're saying that 4e players are less intelligent than 3.5 players? Not only is this blatantly false (for starters, combat in 4e requires actual tactics while in 3.5 you just spam the trick your character was built for over and over again), but it's also freakin' offensive.

Zeta Kai
2009-06-02, 09:30 AM
No worries, just voicing an alternative viewpoint.

Well, isn't that what forums are all about? Voicing viewpoints to incite flamewars engender togetherness & understanding? :smallwink:


The bit that felt least "D&D" to me when playing D20/4e was the combat, very jarring.

My most jarring moment was looking over the gutted & mangled revised skill system. That's when I decided that 4E wasn't for me. Nothing else could hurt me after that; I was numbed by the devastation.


I think the problem arises when you find you like a build, or perhaps just a power or feat, yet without a more spelled-out mechanical support to go with it, two (or more) different DM's might have wildly different rulings on what you are capable of. Depending on those rulings or houserules, the concept you have of your character (which may be entirely reasonable to you) may not work at all in practice.

There's no real problem with the fact that there are two different games of the same system being played. That happens all the time with houserules and the like. The problem lies in familiarity and ease of use for players that might change games on a regular basis. It's simply conducive to play to have a common ruleset for common encounters.

This sums up my thoughts, mostly. There's nothing wrong with everyone playing a different game, one more suited to that particular group's individual tastes. This is inevitable, regardless of the game, because almost all group use some houserules; it's the rare group that strives to play strictly by-the-book.

But moving from one group to another becomes problematic with certain games because the houserules outnumber the book rules. AD&D, GURPS, Paladium, & FUDGE are all notorious for this. Did you learn the game at one table? Well, that's great. Now when you go to another group, you get to learn the rules all over again. Of course, people play different rulesets all the time (I myself have GMed many different game types, mostly D&D or OWOD). But a significant part of 3E's design was to provide a consistent foundation in the ruleset so there wasn't so much of a need for house rules as there was in 2E. This made for easier cross-group transitions & more of a common gaming community, which I think worked out okay so far. :smallwink:


So you're saying that 4e players are less intelligent than 3.5 players? Not only is this blatantly false (for starters, combat in 4e requires actual tactics while in 3.5 you just spam the trick your character was built for over and over again), but it's also freakin' offensive.

And no, he's saying (I presume) that WotC is looking to broaden the appeal of their brand to increase sales, so they are targeting people who play video games, which is a larger market. They've said so themselves several times. Whether this is actually a good idea, or that they should do so at the expense of a significant portion of their current customer base, remains to be seen.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-02, 02:36 PM
So you're saying that 4e players are less intelligent than 3.5 players? Not only is this blatantly false (for starters, combat in 4e requires actual tactics while in 3.5 you just spam the trick your character was built for over and over again), but it's also freakin' offensive.

As someone who enjoys the utter simplicity - and deadliness - of Basic D&D, I have to agree. The rules for chess are quick to learn and everyone starts out with the same back 2 rows, but you wouldn't call a chess master unintelligent.

Frankly, the stigma that Basic D&D was just for simpler people and that smarter kids were playing Advanced D&D kept me away from discovering just how cool Basic was until a couple years ago. I think it is ironic that the most rules-lite version of D&D is also the deadliest and requires perhaps the highest player skill of them all.

Eldariel
2009-06-02, 03:11 PM
So you're saying that 4e players are less intelligent than 3.5 players? Not only is this blatantly false (for starters, combat in 4e requires actual tactics while in 3.5 you just spam the trick your character was built for over and over again), but it's also freakin' offensive.

No, he's saying that the game is aimed to less intelligent people. That doesn't stop übersmart people from picking it up, but rather just makes it more accessible to people who are less so. That is his thesis; it is purely about the game and the target demographic, not about who actually plays the game, not about the players and practice but the aim and theory.

shadzar
2009-06-02, 03:52 PM
Heh, see the next post in the thread after yours. :smallbiggrin:

See the Baby Ruth bar floating in the pool in the movie Caddyshack. Now reverse the idea of it and stick what was supposed to be floating in the pool into a Baby Ruth wrapper.

Does it then become a Baby Ruth, just because it looks extremely similar and is now in the Baby Ruth wrapper?

Was what was floating in the pool what it appeared to be?

:smallwink:

fusilier
2009-06-02, 05:37 PM
Ok, so I should preface this by saying I've never been a big fan of D&D, but all my friends play it, so I play it too. The first RPG I played was West End Games Star Wars (d6-system), which was way easier to learn than 2nd ed. D&D!!

In 2nd edition an odd numbered stat was actually meaningful, and had impact on game play. One of the things that annoyed me about 3rd (and subsequently 4th) was the fact that odd numbered stats were just stepping stones in character advancement. They seem to have kept the scale just for legacy reasons, and not as an integral part of the system.

Anyway, I understand a lot of the complaints about 4th ed. It put increased emphasis on combat, while decreasing the options for non-combat actions. This seems to be variously condemned or praised by different players so it probably comes down to personal opinion. That is why some people say it is more video-game like. Many video-games have lots of combat options, and next to no non-combat features. It is more "constrained" in a rule-system sense. The rules are more "complete" in that there are less instances that are allowed to fall outside the rules. It is, however, still rather open-ended in terms of storyline and plot (according to the particular DM), but it is much more closed in terms of rules.

There's a lot of talk about combat requiring more tactics in 4th, but I don't really see it myself. I understand the arguments, but I don't notice it in actual gameplay -- that might just be me. The plethora of feats and powers, etc., that are used in combat is sometimes overwhelming. In my experience many go unused, and I seem to miss at least 50% of the time with an unreliable daily/encounter attack that has no half-damage. Also, with my barbarian character, many of his evocations(?) have similar plusses to damage, and I'm constantly confusing which one applies in which situation (didn't have this problem with my fighter).

What is all the talk about game balance? Wargames need to worry about balance (which can be accomplished in a lot of ways, not simply making everything equal). In my opinion, roleplaying games are balanced less by the rules, and more by the judicious introduction of appropriate challenges by the GM/DM. The designers *do* need to pay attention to how their rules are balanced, but too much emphasis on balance seems to run against the rpg idiom. Of course, things are changing, and more and more people seem to never have played anything but D&D (3rd - 4th). There are different approaches to role-playing games, and people have different preferences.

Faleldir
2009-06-02, 05:46 PM
I don't think 4e is too simple, and I agree with some of the aspects that were simplified, but I just can't get over the fact that every class has the same BAB and saves. That's not what we meant when we said we wanted balance!

Zeta Kai
2009-06-02, 06:05 PM
What is all the talk about game balance? Wargames need to worry about balance (which can be accomplished in a lot of ways, not simply making everything equal). In my opinion, roleplaying games are balanced less by the rules, and more by the judicious introduction of appropriate challenges by the GM/DM. The designers *do* need to pay attention to how their rules are balanced, but too much emphasis on balance seems to run against the rpg idiom. Of course, things are changing, and more and more people seem to never have played anything but D&D (3rd - 4th). There are different approaches to role-playing games, and people have different preferences.

This is an eloquent illustration of my point: 4E is a wargame masquerading as an RPG. Therefore, IMO, it does not "deserve" the name D&D. It has a D&D veneer over it, but it wears that like Buffalo Bill wore his woman-skin-suit in The Silence of the Lambs. It doesn't really fit, & gives players/DMs a vastly different impression of what they're getting into versus what the game is actually like. The chatter from WotC didn't help, because they tended to claim that 4E shared something with its forebears other than some minor terminology. 4E walks like a wargame, it talks like a wargame, & it's only WotC's insistence that it's an RPG that "makes it so". There's not even anything wrong with being a wargame, so I don't really understand why 4E had to replace 3E, considering their vast disparities.

fusilier
2009-06-02, 11:14 PM
This is an eloquent illustration of my point: 4E is a wargame masquerading as an RPG. Therefore, IMO, it does not "deserve" the name D&D. It has a D&D veneer over it, but it wears that like Buffalo Bill wore his woman-skin-suit in The Silence of the Lambs. It doesn't really fit, & gives players/DMs a vastly different impression of what they're getting into versus what the game is actually like. The chatter from WotC didn't help, because they tended to claim that 4E shared something with its forebears other than some minor terminology. 4E walks like a wargame, it talks like a wargame, & it's only WotC's insistence that it's an RPG that "makes it so". There's not even anything wrong with being a wargame, so I don't really understand why 4E had to replace 3E, considering their vast disparities.

Well, saying that 4th edition is just a wargame masquerading as a RPG is stronger than I would put it, but the trend seems to be in that direction.

ashmanonar
2009-06-02, 11:28 PM
So you're saying that 4e players are less intelligent than 3.5 players? Not only is this blatantly false (for starters, combat in 4e requires actual tactics while in 3.5 you just spam the trick your character was built for over and over again), but it's also freakin' offensive.

Yea. I'm trying to find a way to respond to this thread without getting banned.

Unlikely to happen.


I don't think 4e is too simple, and I agree with some of the aspects that were simplified, but I just can't get over the fact that every class has the same BAB and saves. That's not what we meant when we said we wanted balance!

Are you really that attached to the mechanical concepts of "bab" and "saves" that a system that's been designed with a subtly different game mechanic in mind is gamebreaking to you?

mistformsquirrl
2009-06-02, 11:34 PM
My personal theory is actually quite straightforward:


3.5e, though flawed, is a very strong system on it's own. One that gives a huge variety of options (probably more than is strictly necessary). This inspires a great deal of loyalty in players because lets face it - you want to do something, you can almost certainly find a way to do it in 3.5e.

It's also been out longer by far (especially counting 3.0e), giving people time to get acclimated; has had some videogames based on it (and in the middle of the edition - not at the tail end).

Finally there's just money - namely, a lot of folks don't want to buy a whole new collection of books - especially in that 3.5e, despite it's flaws, is a good system.

Essentially it can feel like switching to 4th is essentially spending money on something that:

A) Gives fewer options

B) Isn't leaps and bounds better - I'd go as far as to say 4th is better in some regards; but we're not talking a system that is SO much better that switching is "the only logical choice".

C) Is unfamiliar in many ways - Although I hesitate to call 4th edition "videogamey" like some say; it's definitely a fundemental shift from 3.5e. To the point where coming in from a 3.5e background can take a lot of unlearning.

D) Alteration of playstyle of some classes (Sometimes of course this was necessary; but it's still an adjustment.)

E) Fluff - Although clearly you don't have to follow it, some of the fluff alterations may grate people. It's fixable; but it's sometimes annoying to flip back to older books for fluff when you're using new rules.

Ultimately, I like 4th and I still like 3.5e - I actually feel both are great systems depending on what you're after.

However it becomes far more difficult for me to justify a full switch to 4th when I like 3.5e a lot as-is, already understand it, and most importantly - already own the books and thus do not need to spend more cash. (If I had more money, it'd be a non-issue; I'd have both sets. But I don't.)

So - from my perspective at least, the problem isn't that 4e is bad by any stretch. The problem is that 4e is following up a system that was quite enjoyable, while not being in itself so much better that switching is the most logical thing.

I've mentioned this before; but I think 4e would be drastically more acceptable to many if it were under a different label than D&D. Then you'd be able to look at the system entirely on it's own merits and flaws, and not have the weight of history behind it.

That of course is just my opinion. I'll play either system as I find both fun; I just won't be buying a lot of 4e books until I either come into a ton of cash or a friend is getting out of the hobby and can get them cheap.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-03, 12:15 PM
My personal theory is actually quite straightforward:


3.5e, though flawed, is a very strong system on it's own. One that gives a huge variety of options (probably more than is strictly necessary). This inspires a great deal of loyalty in players because lets face it - you want to do something, you can almost certainly find a way to do it in 3.5e.


One of my pet peeves there. Let me amend the sentence for you: "Let's face it - you want to do something, you can almost certainly find a way to do it in 3.5e if you play your character to high enough level".

I wanted to try out arcane trickster; that impromptu sneak attack sounded very cool. We played once a month for about 2 years, and I got to level 10, and I never got to take a level in arcane trickster.

There are lots of examples like that; I think if you really truly want to play a system that allows you to do anything you'd like, you should be playing a superheroes system. Low level 3.5 is not as conducive to the superhero experience, though high level is.

RebelRogue
2009-06-03, 04:42 PM
This is an eloquent illustration of my point: 4E is a wargame masquerading as an RPG.
No. D&D itself is, at its heart, a wargame masquerading as a RPG. It's the game's explicit roots after all. In that regard 3rd edition(s) is the odd edition out! 4th takes that old mentality and actually makes it work. And it still has way more skills and options for roleplaying/complex game style they offer than the old editions ever did (actually, perform, craft and profession are the only skills that isn't reasonably handled within the 4th ed skill system, BTW).

I'm not saying the "old way" of playing is better, just that 4th ed at its heart is (for better or worse, according to taste) closer to the original spirit of the game than 3rd was.

shadzar
2009-06-03, 05:08 PM
Which oddly Gary wrote AD&D in order to get more into a roleplaying game (without those dirty thespians!) and a bit away from a tactical miniatures game. The reason being playing a single mini in a wargame wasn't as much fun as playing an armchair general.

Colmarr
2009-06-03, 06:10 PM
What is all the talk about game balance? Wargames need to worry about balance (which can be accomplished in a lot of ways, not simply making everything equal). In my opinion, roleplaying games are balanced less by the rules, and more by the judicious introduction of appropriate challenges by the GM/DM.

Let's address this by using an example.

How exactly does the GM judiciously introduce an appropriate challenge when a 3.5e party includes a Cindy/God wizard, a DMM persist cleric, a sword and board fighter and a monk?

Bear in mind that we're talking about systems here, so the answer isn't "Houserule" or "ban Cindy wizards". Either of those answers is actually exactly the thing you are complaining about: balancing the system.

The arguments against balance as a requirement of an RPG either forget or ignore that it is (at least in my opinion) generally a good thing that player characters are at approximately equal power levels.

Gerbah
2009-06-04, 12:36 AM
I don't know, I've only looked at 4E, haven't played it, but there are a lot of things I like, but more I dislike.

Main thing: I can't make the character I want. In 3.5, if I want to, say, make a Sorcerer, who is a Kobold, who dual-wields, I can (Daggerspell Mage as an example). In 4E? I can actually make a sorcerer now, I haven't seen any real rules for playing a Kobold, and from what I saw spellcasters must have their focus item to cast spells. Also, dual-wielding is essentially useless for non-Rangers it seems.

I don't know, I liked how 3.5 was more of "This is what I want to be, but which way do I do it?" instead of "I want to do this, but I apparently can't". Heck, if someone wants to let me know how I could make that character in 4E without being level 20 or 30 or whatever, I'm all ears.

Thajocoth
2009-06-04, 12:50 AM
if you want to appraise an item in 3E, there's a skill for that.

If it's magical: Arcana
If it's divine: Religion
If it's natural: Nature
Otherwise: History


If you want to forge a sword, there's a skill for that.

Skill challenge. Assuming the player's got the tools to do it... Multiple successes of various skills.


If you want to tie somebody up, there's a skill for that.

Thievery

I'm not claiming to know anything about 3.x, so I'm not really comparing. Just filling in a few blanks.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-04, 10:33 AM
No. D&D itself is, at its heart, a wargame masquerading as a RPG. It's the game's explicit roots after all. In that regard 3rd edition(s) is the odd edition out! 4th takes that old mentality and actually makes it work. And it still has way more skills and options for roleplaying/complex game style they offer than the old editions ever did (actually, perform, craft and profession are the only skills that isn't reasonably handled within the 4th ed skill system, BTW).

I'm not saying the "old way" of playing is better, just that 4th ed at its heart is (for better or worse, according to taste) closer to the original spirit of the game than 3rd was.

Pet peeve #2. While D&D grew out of chainmail - a wargame - even the original edition, at its heart, is a dungeon exploration game, not a wargame. What was being explored would evolve with later editions until 2E had you exploring just about everything, even outer space. 3E's tag-line was about "getting back to the dungeons", but 3E was the first edition to greatly increase the time required to run a combat, moving combat more into the focus, but really 3E just had more of everything so exploration was still a key facet, you just couldn't explore as much in one session.

From what I've heard of 4E - and I haven't played it - it seems like it revolves around setting up epic combats in a dungeon setting, rather than exploring that dungeon for its own sake, so no, I don't think that 4E returned to D&D's roots.

Kylarra
2009-06-04, 10:40 AM
Main thing: I can't make the character I want. In 3.5, if I want to, say, make a Sorcerer, who is a Kobold, who dual-wields, I can (Daggerspell Mage as an example). In 4E? I can actually make a sorcerer now, I haven't seen any real rules for playing a Kobold, and from what I saw spellcasters must have their focus item to cast spells. Also, dual-wielding is essentially useless for non-Rangers it seems.It's actually possible, to have the dual-wielding dagger sorcerer anyway. There is a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112871) recently about something similar. Of course the Kobold race is currently not statted out AFAIK, but that's not really a fault of 4e yet because it's still relatively new.

Matthew
2009-06-04, 10:51 AM
The key reason for the "take up" difference between AD&D to D20/3e and D20/3e to D20/4e is the mood of the fan base. In the case of AD&D the game had become deeply unpopular and was often ridiculed (usually unjustly) in comparison to more modern RPGs. D20/3e gave the fans exactly the D&D that they wanted (even though it then turned out that many hadn't actually wanted what they thought they did), but D20/4e had nothing to really give. Most fans seem to have been perfectly happy with D20/3e, warts and all.

Those who like D20/4e better are typically also of the opinion that it is a different game, and there is room for both to co-exist. Most of the outrage is centred on problems to do with the brand. The loss of living support for campaign worlds that people might favour or the transformation of the communities they once felt part of. For my part, I do not feel D20/4e would have been more acceptable were it released in 2000 instead of D20/3e. In fact, I think it would have been less acceptable. D20/3e forms a (rickety) bridge between it and TSR D&D.

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-04, 10:57 AM
It's actually possible, to have the dual-wielding dagger sorcerer anyway. There is a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112871) recently about something similar. Of course the Kobold race is currently not statted out AFAIK, but that's not really a fault of 4e yet because it's still relatively new.

Not as an official PC maybe, but there is a monster-manual version, which is also supported by the character builder. You just have to make sure your DM is okay with it first, technically.

Kylarra
2009-06-04, 10:59 AM
Not as an official PC maybe, but there is a monster-manual version, which is also supported by the character builder. You just have to make sure your DM is okay with it first, technically.
Ah, my bad as I don't have the book (or access to CB). Thanks for the clarification. :smallcool:

Thajocoth
2009-06-04, 11:56 AM
The player races in the MM are almost preview-ish... They can be played, but there are no feats for them and they're still going to be tweaked a little when fully released. 6 of the races listed in the 1st MM have been released tweaked and with feats available, and I suspect that trend will continue. I think they're just not fully tested yet or something.

I'm hoping for a full release on Kobolds soon. They look fun. (And I'm hoping for anything player playable for Illithids...)

ThunderCat
2009-06-04, 12:16 PM
Main thing: I can't make the character I want. In 3.5, if I want to, say, make a Sorcerer, who is a Kobold, who dual-wields, I can (Daggerspell Mage as an example). In 4E? I can actually make a sorcerer now, I haven't seen any real rules for playing a Kobold, and from what I saw spellcasters must have their focus item to cast spells. Also, dual-wielding is essentially useless for non-Rangers it seems.The rules for playing a kobold are in the Monster Manual, just like in 3.5. It's advised that they be used at the DM's discretion, since they're not all (yet) completely balanced against the races in the Player's Handbook, just like in 3.5. The only difference is that generally, the character races in the 4E MM are better balanced against the PHB than in 3.5. Spellcasters don't need anything to cast their spells, but certain items, such as magical implements, can benefit their spellcasting, just like certain items could in 3.5. Dual wielding is not useless, quite the contrary, it's even worth considering for many casters, chances are you just don't get how incredibly valuable many of the bonuses are in 4E. Also, please tell me how you managed to play a daggerspell mage only a year after 3E was first published :smallconfused:

fusilier
2009-06-04, 12:33 PM
Let's address this by using an example.

How exactly does the GM judiciously introduce an appropriate challenge when a 3.5e party includes a Cindy/God wizard, a DMM persist cleric, a sword and board fighter and a monk?

Bear in mind that we're talking about systems here, so the answer isn't "Houserule" or "ban Cindy wizards". Either of those answers is actually exactly the thing you are complaining about: balancing the system.

The arguments against balance as a requirement of an RPG either forget or ignore that it is (at least in my opinion) generally a good thing that player characters are at approximately equal power levels.

Ok, so this is where my different background comes in. I've never run a D&D campaign (played in them of course). I have run a couple of successful GURPS campaigns. So, *I'm* used to studying the characters, their strengths and weaknesses, and providing challenges/opponents that seem to be right. There is no metric for enemies defined anywhere in the rules, I just have to guess (if I guess wrong, then I might have to pull my punches).

Take my 17th century campaign, for example. When all the players armed their characters with swords, knives, and a pistol. I didn't throw a squad of musketeers hiding behind a wall 50 yards away on the otherside of an empty field at the players. The party would have been wiped out.

Admittedly D&D has always had a different way of approaching things. With explicitly defined experience points to be gained, and attempts to provide pre-defined difficulty levels. I'm starting to develop the impression that the particular combinations of powers/feat, etc, you decide to take can have a much bigger impact on how effective your character is in combat. So that simply introducing challenges based on level/class is inappropriate -- and balancing has become an issue. Anyway it's just a general impression.

I agree with Colmarr, I like having my players with similar amount of points, but then I run games where combat isn't the only thing you need to roll dice for. Some (GURPS) characters are next to useless in combat, but are incredibly useful out of it, and vice-versa. In that context, I'm not sure that similarly powered characters are necessary. Colmarr, I can't answer your question, because I honestly don't understand about half the words! :-) So I would have to do a ton of research before I could get back to you. However, If you feel that the system (i.e. rules) should tell you exactly who should fight what, then D&D will continue to be an increasingly "closed" system. Such a system can only be balanced by the rules, and not by GM/DM. Closed systems also have some interesting philosophical issues.

As for "tactics" in 4th ed. I've seen far greater use of tactics in combat systems that lack all the options of D&D.

Thajocoth
2009-06-04, 12:39 PM
...if I want to, say, make a Sorcerer, who is a Kobold, who dual-wields...

Kobold race from the "Racial Traits" section of the Monster Manual.

Sorcerer class from the PHB2, probably Cosmic (Arcane Power) or Dragon (PHB2) magic as those are strength based, and if you want to melee, you'll want to increase your strength anyway.

Sorcerers already use daggers to cast with, so no need to take feats to change that, but if you prefer another light or heavy blade, Arcane Implement Proficiency from Arcane Power, and take a light or heavy blade. (As Swordmages can use those). Then use a 2nd feat to actually be proficient in the weapon.

Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Threat, ect... To get the most out of holding a second weapon.

Dual Implement Spellcaster feat from Arcane Power once you have an enhancement bonus on your offhand blade to add power to your arcane attacks.

Panda-s1
2009-06-04, 01:02 PM
Which oddly Gary wrote AD&D in order to get more into a roleplaying game (without those dirty thespians!) and a bit away from a tactical miniatures game. The reason being playing a single mini in a wargame wasn't as much fun as playing an armchair general.

Um.... You do realized Gary Gygax wrote AD&D so tournaments could be better facilitated, right? There's a reason why there's a rule for practically every dungeon situation, but not much in the realm of running courtly negotiations. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure the reaction table didn't exist in 1st ed. (again, I could be wrong about that).

shadzar
2009-06-04, 02:54 PM
I'm hoping for a full release on Kobolds soon. They look fun.

Ain't gonna happen because they are shifty. That power/ability is too powerful to give to a PC. Forget which article or podcast it was in.

Um.... You do realized Gary Gygax wrote AD&D so tournaments could be better facilitated, right? There's a reason why there's a rule for practically every dungeon situation, but not much in the realm of running courtly negotiations. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure the reaction table didn't exist in 1st ed. (again, I could be wrong about that).

"If you are not playing AD&D the way it is written then you are not playing AD&D." - Gary Gygax, Dragon magazine Issue ??? (have to check my archive)
He said this in response to playing at conventions, but not for the whole of AD&D.

He didn't write it just for tournaments, because D&D will never work for tournaments are their is nothing competitive about it. HE wrote it in parts for several reasons. The thing with Dave being one, and wanting a game that was better coordinated that the multiple version of say Basic by different author and where already too many people have been writing rules for D&D to confound the game. So he wanted one set of rules, rather than everyone under the sun writing conflicting things.

Just so happens it works good for the RPGA as well for the convention scene.

But it wasn't the only reason. The more rules as it were was because he could.

So organization of the rules was key to give one ruleset rather than many, but not solely with tournaments in mind, unless you want to say Gary was deluded in thinking people only play tournaments, such as WotC made 4th for the RPGA set because they do think people only want to play in RPGA. :smallconfused:

Gary may have been deluded about some things, but his players being only those of the tournament scene was NOT one of them.

Thajocoth
2009-06-04, 03:04 PM
Ain't gonna happen because they are shifty. That power/ability is too powerful to give to a PC. Forget which article or podcast it was in.

Oh, I have no doubt they'll nerf them. Just like they took away Minotaur's ability to wield oversized weapons when they got a writeup.

jseah
2009-06-04, 05:10 PM
Ah. 4E...

Well, I just finished (as a player) a one-year-long-RL campaign that met once a week. And have played in, and GMed, a few 3.5E ones.

My take is that 4E is good while a battle is going. The rules start to get a bit flaky if you look at them closely but that's ok. In the middle of battle, no character is going check the subtle nuances of Fireball rather than torch enemies.

I have a few gripes:
1. A lot of actions that are logically sensible are completely unwritten in 4E even when the rules could be easily modified from 3.5E.
- One example includes disarming and sundering of weapons. It's critically important to combat and leaving it to GM call is unwise as (with combat) a player needs to know how feasible the action is before considering it as an option.


2. Secondly, the game majorly favours a "kick in the door" style of play, rewarding brash actions and sheer power over tactics and surprise. Well, not rewarding, but penalties for impatience and poor judgement are not high.
Yes, tactics can net you a few pluses to damage or a 10% better chance to hit, but it should really be more than that. Controller wizards (having played one) are mostly useless at low levels and control hurts allies as much as enemies at high levels. (got complained to whenever I prepped Ice Storm)
- Perhaps I just like games where a strategic / tactical element is present. As it is, the reward for good planning is a mere combat advantage +2 or "the rogue gets sneak attack". The way I see it, an ambush situation should be FAR more lethal than a straight up arena, all other things being equal. To the point where it takes say... an entire tier difference to compensate for the disadvantage and equal power means the ambushing party steamrolls the opposition with little to no effort.
- Running into battle was also made too easy. See something who's not ridiculously powerful? Kill it. Healing is too damn cheap anyway. T.T

- In a specific example, the party's healer was missing for 1 session and the worse happened. We got ambushed in a cramped tunnel 5 squares wide by gibbering mouthers and some rock-thrower things.
Mouthers had Aura that attacked will every round inflicting stun-save-end. Resulting in half the party being in stun every round. (!)
Rock-thrower things had a basic attack that was ranged burst 1 and inflicted difficult terrain for the rest of the encounter (!)
They had some useless melee to soak hits.
None were minions, all had 50+ hp at least. My party was level 8 with 1 controller wizard, 1 hell-lock, 1 rogue, 1 ranger and 1 warlord. (cleric missing)

My initial reaction at seeing the ambush setup was a quiet word to the gamemaster about a TPK. Well, turns out only the ranger and... rogue, I think, went under. And the warlord brought them back.

My point is that it SHOULD have been a TPK. We were out-gunned and out-numbered in unfavourable terrain against an ambush. So I'm thinking there's something wrong with the system for making characters too resilient, no?

3. Even in combat, specialization is... not there. Controllers should not be dealing damage (except as a last resort). Strikers should be the main damage source (I'm thinking more than 2x of any other class) but need controllers to get enemies exposed to do their thing. Defenders and Leaders should really have been 1 role but able to focus as needed.
- It was at the point where I ended up blasting with Wall of Fire instead of actually doing any control with it since my GM looked at her notes and said: "Well, the thing has 200+ hp, so it can take the damage from Wall of Fire instead of going the long way around the building. "
- And the warlord was dealing the major damage with a pick... (?)


4. Out of combat... hmm. I want to use my character's abilities interestingly out of combat. I'm a wizard. Surely I know other magic than shooting fire/ice and some crappy rituals which are basically useless? (apart from raise dead and the divination ones)
- Surely the mere existence of magic and people who use it would mean that there will non-combat applications of it... So where are they? The most non-combat thing I can think of at heroic tier is using wall of fog to get out of the sun. (or for some privacy)
- What about non-mages?... scouting ahead is practically useless if you have more than 1 melee character since they're bloody obvious when attacking and can't use harassing tactics. 1 action in surprise isn't much of a point when combat lasts 10+ rounds anyway and better positions give basically no advantage.


************************************************** ******

Thus, given these things, I would say that 3.5E does seem a better game to me. After weighing the balance 4E has against the options 3.5E grants.

Some houserules I would make:
- Hp increase per level dropped.
- Combat advantage grants auto-hit. Flanking no longer grants CA but allows sneak attack to work.
- Healing Word is out-of-combat only; in exchange, Clerics and Warlords can freely choose each other's powers.
- Magic item power per day limit? What magic item power per day limit? =P
- Potions are now standard action to use. (but don't take surges to use, this includes healing potions)

Plus I think majority of the powers need reworking.

This as I see it makes combat the deadly encounter that it's supposed to be, and to be used as a last resort. However skilled you may be, combat should never be a joke as a lucky hit from a dagger (read: crit) can kill you. And if you're going to fight, better hold as many cards as you can grab.

Panda-s1
2009-06-04, 05:30 PM
Ain't gonna happen because they are shifty. That power/ability is too powerful to give to a PC. Forget which article or podcast it was in.
No, they said in that podcast if and when they make the PC version of kobolds, they won't have the Shifty racial power, they never flat out denied ever making it.


"If you are not playing AD&D the way it is written then you are not playing AD&D." - Gary Gygax, Dragon magazine Issue ??? (have to check my archive)
He said this in response to playing at conventions, but not for the whole of AD&D.

He didn't write it just for tournaments, because D&D will never work for tournaments are their is nothing competitive about it.
Whoa! Whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Whoa.

History lesson! There were D&D tournaments! Sure there's nothing inherently directly competitive about D&D, you always work with your party. As alien as this may sound though, there were D&D tournaments back in the days of OD&D and AD&D, where you and your party tried to get through a premade dungeon* better than other parties, the goal being getting all the treasure and finding all the secrets, in a set amount of time**. This is what convention gaming was about back then. And how do you keep things fair?


HE wrote it in parts for several reasons. The thing with Dave being one, and wanting a game that was better coordinated that the multiple version of say Basic by different author and where already too many people have been writing rules for D&D to confound the game. So he wanted one set of rules, rather than everyone under the sun writing conflicting things.

Just so happens it works good for the RPGA as well for the convention scene.

But it wasn't the only reason. The more rules as it were was because he could.

So organization of the rules was key to give one ruleset rather than many, but not solely with tournaments in mind, unless you want to say Gary was deluded in thinking people only play tournaments, such as WotC made 4th for the RPGA set because they do think people only want to play in RPGA. :smallconfused:

Gary may have been deluded about some things, but his players being only those of the tournament scene was NOT one of them.
Yeah, you have the right idea, one unified system to make sure everyone was on the same level, and not subject to varying DM rulings.

But that wasn't my argument, my argument was because AD&D was written with these ideas in mind, it didn't bring anything new to the table in terms of "roleplaying." Roleplaying back then was all about going by your stats and backstory, not having a rule for everything you wanted to do in game.

*In fact, this is the origin of most early D&D modules.
**I'm no game historian, and I didn't play back then, so I might be a bit off in the details, but that's the basic gist of it.

Thajocoth
2009-06-04, 05:36 PM
4. Out of combat... hmm. I want to use my character's abilities interestingly out of combat. I'm a wizard...

Cantrips.

My wizard used them all the time. This one time, during an auction, for example, my wizard used Ghost Sound to insert the word "thousand" and the end of my rival's bid. It worked. He didn't have 350,000gp, so he had to concede the bid to the second-highest bid, 300gp (me). And the number of times I've used prestidigitation to heat or cool something, or create an image of some sort... Or grab things I can't reach with Mage Hand... And all the times I've cast Light on the fighter's shield so we can see... I must've cast cantrips as often as any of my other at-wills and they're all mostly useless in battle.

Having seen non-wizard controllers... Wizards rain destruction, destroying everything. Enemies as well as property and allies. Other controllers tend to just hit the enemies. In a lot of the battles I've seen, having a wizard has turned out to be a bit of a handicap... Like when we fought in a tavern and the flaming sphere set the place on fire, so we didn't get paid, for example. The difference between a controller and a striker, in my experience, is that a striker deals more damage to one enemy while a controller deals less damage to multiple enemies and can deal more passive damage. They're great for getting rid of minions.

Panda-s1
2009-06-04, 06:11 PM
Ah. 4E...

Well, I just finished (as a player) a one-year-long-RL campaign that met once a week. And have played in, and GMed, a few 3.5E ones.

My take is that 4E is good while a battle is going. The rules start to get a bit flaky if you look at them closely but that's ok. In the middle of battle, no character is going check the subtle nuances of Fireball rather than torch enemies.

I have a few gripes:
1. A lot of actions that are logically sensible are completely unwritten in 4E even when the rules could be easily modified from 3.5E.
- One example includes disarming and sundering of weapons. It's critically important to combat and leaving it to GM call is unwise as (with combat) a player needs to know how feasible the action is before considering it as an option.

Okay, logically sensible? I know I'm arguing semantics here, but I think logically possible is a better way to put it.

But really, sundering and disarming are critically important? I'm not saying they're not useful, but I think I've only ever seen a disarm attempt once in a D&D game, and usually it only comes up when the PCs want things to end peacefully.

There's basically two main reasons why they didn't include rules for disarming and sundering: A) they're kinda hard to make simple rules for, B) sundering and disarming (usually) become irrelevant after a while. You might be fighting orcs and goblins in the beginning of your career, and they could be useful things to do. But after a while, the things you fight change. Fighting a dragon? Disarm it! Oh wait... Oh crap, a gelatinous cube! Sunder it's.... amorphous appendage. Yeah...


2. Secondly, the game majorly favours a "kick in the door" style of play, rewarding brash actions and sheer power over tactics and surprise. Well, not rewarding, but penalties for impatience and poor judgement are not high.
Yes, tactics can net you a few pluses to damage or a 10% better chance to hit, but it should really be more than that. Controller wizards (having played one) are mostly useless at low levels and control hurts allies as much as enemies at high levels. (got complained to whenever I prepped Ice Storm)
- Perhaps I just like games where a strategic / tactical element is present. As it is, the reward for good planning is a mere combat advantage +2 or "the rogue gets sneak attack". The way I see it, an ambush situation should be FAR more lethal than a straight up arena, all other things being equal. To the point where it takes say... an entire tier difference to compensate for the disadvantage and equal power means the ambushing party steamrolls the opposition with little to no effort.

Okay, first off, there's a lot of things other than sneak attack that trigger off combat advantage. You're also forgetting that rounds are really only six seconds long, getting a +2 for flanking makes perfect sense. That and +2 for flanking echoes in the halls of D&D history, from what I was told it's the only rule that's remained intact from Chainmail.

As for the ambushing should = steamrolling argument, A) again, six second combat round, B) if you're ambushing guards, chances are they're probably adept at reacting to ambushes. Moreover, D&D never really did pertinently lethal situations to well to begin with (yes, this is a bit of a cop-out, but if we're comparing D&D to D&D...).


- Running into battle was also made too easy. See something who's not ridiculously powerful? Kill it. Healing is too damn cheap anyway. T.T

- In a specific example, the party's healer was missing for 1 session and the worse happened. We got ambushed in a cramped tunnel 5 squares wide by gibbering mouthers and some rock-thrower things.
Mouthers had Aura that attacked will every round inflicting stun-save-end. Resulting in half the party being in stun every round. (!)
Rock-thrower things had a basic attack that was ranged burst 1 and inflicted difficult terrain for the rest of the encounter (!)
They had some useless melee to soak hits.
None were minions, all had 50+ hp at least. My party was level 8 with 1 controller wizard, 1 hell-lock, 1 rogue, 1 ranger and 1 warlord. (cleric missing)

My initial reaction at seeing the ambush setup was a quiet word to the gamemaster about a TPK. Well, turns out only the ranger and... rogue, I think, went under. And the warlord brought them back.

My point is that it SHOULD have been a TPK. We were out-gunned and out-numbered in unfavourable terrain against an ambush. So I'm thinking there's something wrong with the system for making characters too resilient, no?
Buh... what? Wow, okay, so you wanted a TPK. Really? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the DM was pulling back near the end there? TPKs aren't fun, for either DM or players (unless your PCs are fatalistic, then I guess that's just good roleplaying). And two of the characters fell! That's pretty scary from a player standpoint, and a good encounter from a DM standpoint. And in the end the party overcame unbeatable odds, isn't that the entire point of heroic fantasy?

That, and if the rogue and ranger fell, that's kind of evidence against characters being too resilient.


3. Even in combat, specialization is... not there. Controllers should not be dealing damage (except as a last resort). Strikers should be the main damage source (I'm thinking more than 2x of any other class) but need controllers to get enemies exposed to do their thing. Defenders and Leaders should really have been 1 role but able to focus as needed.
- It was at the point where I ended up blasting with Wall of Fire instead of actually doing any control with it since my GM looked at her notes and said: "Well, the thing has 200+ hp, so it can take the damage from Wall of Fire instead of going the long way around the building. "
- And the warlord was dealing the major damage with a pick... (?)

Wow, this is interesting 'cause people usually argue against the party roles from the standpoint of pigeonholing. But classes bleeding into other roles happens, in fact I'm sure it was intentional.


4. Out of combat... hmm. I want to use my character's abilities interestingly out of combat. I'm a wizard. Surely I know other magic than shooting fire/ice and some crappy rituals which are basically useless? (apart from raise dead and the divination ones)
- Surely the mere existence of magic and people who use it would mean that there will non-combat applications of it... So where are they? The most non-combat thing I can think of at heroic tier is using wall of fog to get out of the sun. (or for some privacy)

Well I got ninja'd, but yeah, cantrips! Cantrips are amazing! Wizards are the only class that gets to do magical things whenever they want. That's really cool, and one of the few reasons I'd ever want to play a wizard.


- What about non-mages?... scouting ahead is practically useless if you have more than 1 melee character since they're bloody obvious when attacking and can't use harassing tactics. 1 action in surprise isn't much of a point when combat lasts 10+ rounds anyway and better positions give basically no advantage.

"10+ rounds anyway"? I have to ask, what kind of game were you playing? I mean occasionally you'll get the long encounter, but most combats end in about 5-6 rounds.


************************************************** ******

Thus, given these things, I would say that 3.5E does seem a better game to me. After weighing the balance 4E has against the options 3.5E grants.

Some houserules I would make:
- Hp increase per level dropped.
- Combat advantage grants auto-hit. Flanking no longer grants CA but allows sneak attack to work.
- Healing Word is out-of-combat only; in exchange, Clerics and Warlords can freely choose each other's powers.
- Magic item power per day limit? What magic item power per day limit? =P
- Potions are now standard action to use. (but don't take surges to use, this includes healing potions)

Plus I think majority of the powers need reworking.

This as I see it makes combat the deadly encounter that it's supposed to be, and to be used as a last resort. However skilled you may be, combat should never be a joke as a lucky hit from a dagger (read: crit) can kill you. And if you're going to fight, better hold as many cards as you can grab.

Y'know, after going through this, and reading your houserules, I really, really don't think D&D is the game for you, in any edition. D&D isn't the most lethal RPG out there, and there are games that better simulate realistic combat.

On that note, I know they made 4e less fatalistic, but 3.5 is no where near as lethal as you'd like it to be.

Gerbah
2009-06-04, 07:20 PM
Huh, I never noticed that there was a Kobold entry for (somewhat) a player race, I just assumed it would have been a foot note in the monster description instead of in "racial traits". Hadn't read anything about Arcane Power quite yet either, but apparently that solves some issues. I'll still have to give it a bit more time, but it certainly seems like 4E is getting more options, though I should have suspected as much.

Also, please tell me how you managed to play a daggerspell mage only a year after 3E was first published :smallconfused:
What? I didn't, I used it as an example. Heck, I'm playing 3.5 anyhow.

Thajocoth
2009-06-04, 08:07 PM
- One example includes disarming and sundering of weapons. It's critically important to combat and leaving it to GM call is unwise as (with combat) a player needs to know how feasible the action is before considering it as an option.If I have a +3 Bloodiron Dagger and a monster snaps it in half in the first round... I would not return to the table. Realistic? Sure. Fun? Absolutely not. My character would have to leave anyway for the simple fact that they've effectively lost their ability to hit or do damage, making them completely useless. However, I'd say the same thing about losing levels because a monster happened to touch me, spending xp to gain items and spells, and having any shred of uniqueness result in leveling at a snails pace compared to everyone else... Which is the impression I get of 3.x. However, not having played 3.x, my opinion there is based solely on hearsay and I know that.

Disarming somebody I can see as a stretch... Have the effect simply be that the player can't attack with their weapon for one round. Don't take it away from them though because, unless they're low enough level to have a mundane weapon, they need it to hit, and regardless of that, they need it to deal any sort of non-negligible damage. If you need something more extreme than no attacks for a round, then I'd say have it cause the "helpless" condition for a round. Yeah, I'd rather my character risks an instant death by coup de grace than is guaranteed one by being reduced to essentially a commoner.

Colmarr
2009-06-04, 09:58 PM
Colmarr, I can't answer your question, because I honestly don't understand about half the words! :-) So I would have to do a ton of research before I could get back to you.

Lol. Fair enough!


However, If you feel that the system (i.e. rules) should tell you exactly who should fight what, then D&D will continue to be an increasingly "closed" system. Such a system can only be balanced by the rules, and not by GM/DM. Closed systems also have some interesting philosophical issues.

This isn't quite what I meant.

The "balance" problem with 3.Xe is not that PCs were more, or less, powerful than monsters. You are correct that that is something for an individual DM to account for.

The problem was that some PCs (such as Cindy/God wizards and DMM persist clerics) were much more powerful than other PCs (such as sword and board fighters and monks). That's inherently difficult for a DM to address, because challenges are either too hard for the weak PCs or too easy for the strong PCs.

This wasn't a GURPS-like situation where the PCs were meant to be better or worse in certain situations. Rather, it was a blatant imbalance in the rules that allowed certain classes and/or races to be better than others in almost all circumstances.

To use your 17th century example, half the PCs had muskets and the other half had (comparatively) NerfTM weapons.

4e took steps to address that imbalance, and I for one consider that a plus in a roleplaying game.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-04, 10:22 PM
Um.... You do realized Gary Gygax wrote AD&D so tournaments could be better facilitated, right? There's a reason why there's a rule for practically every dungeon situation, but not much in the realm of running courtly negotiations. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure the reaction table didn't exist in 1st ed. (again, I could be wrong about that).

Corrected. 1E has a percentile based reaction table, which charisma gives a modifier to. 1E also has a percentile based morale system.

ken-do-nim
2009-06-04, 10:27 PM
As for the ambushing should = steamrolling argument, A) again, six second combat round, B) if you're ambushing guards, chances are they're probably adept at reacting to ambushes. Moreover, D&D never really did pertinently lethal situations to well to begin with (yes, this is a bit of a cop-out, but if we're comparing D&D to D&D...).


Actually, surprise in 1E is extremely lethal and it has been steadily downgraded since. In 1E, with the notable exception of spellcasting, it is possible to gain multiple rounds of actions against a surprised foe, depending upon how badly the foe(s) were surprised. Some foes might be surprised more or less than others depending upon their dexterity, although heavy armor negates high dexterity's ability to reduce surprise. In 2E, surprise was reduced to one round. In 3E, surprise was reduced further to one partial/standard action.

Panda-s1
2009-06-05, 03:08 AM
Corrected. 1E has a percentile based reaction table, which charisma gives a modifier to. 1E also has a percentile based morale system.
Okay. I didn't have my 1st ed. books on me, so I couldn't check.

What kind of morale system is it, though? Is it like 2nd ed. where you roll to see if monsters run away, or did you really have the rules track the morale of your own character? :smallconfused:

Actually, surprise in 1E is extremely lethal and it has been steadily downgraded since. In 1E, with the notable exception of spellcasting, it is possible to gain multiple rounds of actions against a surprised foe, depending upon how badly the foe(s) were surprised. Some foes might be surprised more or less than others depending upon their dexterity, although heavy armor negates high dexterity's ability to reduce surprise. In 2E, surprise was reduced to one round. In 3E, surprise was reduced further to one partial/standard action.
I thought that would be the case, but I didn't want to sound like one of those young, newbie gamers who bash all the old editions. Though the more I learn about 1st ed., the more it seems my assumptions are more or less true...

ken-do-nim
2009-06-05, 06:24 AM
Okay. I didn't have my 1st ed. books on me, so I couldn't check.

What kind of morale system is it, though? Is it like 2nd ed. where you roll to see if monsters run away, or did you really have the rules track the morale of your own character? :smallconfused:


Morale is used to track the loyalty of your character's henchmen (the higher your charisma, the more likely your henchmen are to stick with you) and of course the morale of monsters similar to 2E.

If you ever try 1E, one of the sheer joys you'll find is the henchmen system. Henchmen and hirelings are a BIG part of 1E. In 3.5, you have to take the leadership feat to have a cohort (cohort == henchmen). In 1E everyone who wants henchmen can get some (except I think rangers and maybe monks until they get higher level). The amount and their loyalty depends upon your character's charisma. This is one of the reasons why the party size was so much bigger in 1E.

PnP Fan
2009-06-05, 08:27 AM
I've not read through the entire thread, so I'm sure someone else has made these points, but they are the one's that I see brought up most often when talking to my friends about the good and the bad of 4.0.

1. Bad: Money. Many of my friends do not have money to spend or want to spend money to replicate a genre of game that they've already spent money on. Why buy yet another fantasy game when 3.5 services just fine? They'd rather spend their money on a system for a new genre. The vast improvement of SAGA over previous editions of Star Wars is possibly the only exception to this.

2. Good. 4.0 is a lot of fun.

3. Good. 4.0 doesn't require lots and lots of planning. Pick your race, class, attributes, and go. There's no concerns about 'optimization' or accidentally picking a bad feat/power, because there are no singularly bad choices. There are slightly more effective combinations, but rarely are you going to shoot yourself in the foot. Because even some of us long time gamers have better things to do than study over character options to come up with an effective combination that doesn't ruin other's fun.

4. Bad. Mundane Exploits. A lot of folks I play with have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea of non-magical characters having powers that they can only use periodically (1/encounter, 1/day). I'm not particularly fond of it myself, but I also don't get emotionally invested in the game itself (more in the people I play games with). Strangely enough, these are the same people who like the 3.5 version of this mechanic presented in classes like the Swordsage, Warblade, and Crusader.

5. Bad. Break in continuity. No one I know is enamored of Greyhawk, but in the desire to fit the mechanics of the game into settings like Forgotten Realms and Eberron, there will have to be significant restructuring of the settings and the metaphysics of those settings.

6. Good. Break in continuity. If you like to create your own setting, then ditching the 20+ years of baggage of Greyhawk, and Gygax will suit you just fine.

7. Good. Clearer rules. Say what you like about 'insulting my intelligence. . .blah blah' (incidentally, I've yet to see a bit of inflammatory language in the rule books, so I really don't know where folks are getting this. . .), but clearer, simpler rules are the way to go (Truth and Justice FTW!!!). I don't need a game system to validate or verify my self worth or my intelligence. What I do want is a clearly written set of rules that leave little doubt about what they are intended to cover and how they work. I'm tired of having the same old arguments over and over again. I've had more arguments over 3.x rules than I've had over any game system ever I've played.

So, in short, I think that if 3.x hadn't existed, there are probably enough bad things independant of 3.5 that 4.0 still wouldn't win over traditionalists. That's why they're traditionalists.
For those of us who think of it as an opportunity to spend time with friends, and a game is just a game. It's just fine.
(For the record, I've been playing since 1st ed D&D, and I've enjoyed playing every version of the game so far.)

RebelRogue
2009-06-05, 10:17 AM
4. Bad. Mundane Exploits. A lot of folks I play with have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea of non-magical characters having powers that they can only use periodically (1/encounter, 1/day). I'm not particularly fond of it myself, but I also don't get emotionally invested in the game itself (more in the people I play games with). Strangely enough, these are the same people who like the 3.5 version of this mechanic presented in classes like the Swordsage, Warblade, and Crusader.
I've been thinking the same thing myself, and it is kind of strange. Personally, I'm the other way around: I like 4th ed but never liked ToB much. So much for appearant logic...

Yora
2009-06-05, 11:07 AM
Ok I was thinking, People keep saying that 4E is to simple compared to 3.5. BUT so is 2E and 1E. So if 3E and 3.5 never existed, 4E would be more popular. Comments?
No. I don't like 4th Ed. because it's less like 2nd Ed. then 3rd Ed. ever was.
The transition from the last years of 3rd to 4th wasn't really that drastic. At that point, 3rd had allready drifted far awway from 2nd. Though when 3rd was released, I think it felt like 2nd, just with simpler to manage dice rolling.
If most people who don't like 4th do it for similar reasons than me, there would probably have been even more people who don't like it than there are now.

Twilight Jack
2009-06-05, 12:10 PM
4. Bad. Mundane Exploits. A lot of folks I play with have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea of non-magical characters having powers that they can only use periodically (1/encounter, 1/day). I'm not particularly fond of it myself, but I also don't get emotionally invested in the game itself (more in the people I play games with). Strangely enough, these are the same people who like the 3.5 version of this mechanic presented in classes like the Swordsage, Warblade, and Crusader.

Well, I would note that the maneuver mechanics in ToB, while functionally similar to the 4E notion of martial powers, have a somewhat more organic feel to them in play. All maneuvers are per encounter, there's a recovery mechanic for each class (each with a distinct flavor) so that you can use your maneuvers more than once apiece if you need them, and the maneuvers themselves have a certain logical consistency between their mechanical effect and their fluff.

All of these thing seem to have been dispensed with in 4E to enforce an artificial equivalency between the various classes.

Panda-s1
2009-06-06, 12:18 AM
Morale is used to track the loyalty of your character's henchmen (the higher your charisma, the more likely your henchmen are to stick with you) and of course the morale of monsters similar to 2E.

If you ever try 1E, one of the sheer joys you'll find is the henchmen system. Henchmen and hirelings are a BIG part of 1E. In 3.5, you have to take the leadership feat to have a cohort (cohort == henchmen). In 1E everyone who wants henchmen can get some (except I think rangers and maybe monks until they get higher level). The amount and their loyalty depends upon your character's charisma. This is one of the reasons why the party size was so much bigger in 1E.

Oh no, I know all about getting henchmen, I love that idea a lot. In fact, one of my first D&D characters was a ranger who I put my highest rolled stat (a 14) into his Cha. so he could have a merry band of followers. It would've been awesome if a) the DM wasn't such a... well, bad DM, and b) the druid's player didn't conveniently "forget" his human bonus feat after we reached sixth level (mind you this was a druid who had an unnecessarily high Cha of 18), and proceeded to take Leadership, thereby outshining my character in the role he was designed for. *sigh*

It's one of two things I miss from 3.x, it's a shame there's nothing like that in 4e. I mean I can understand why they didn't, I just hope WotC puts some kind of support for having followers someday.

shadzar
2009-06-06, 12:35 AM
It's one of two things I miss from 3.x, it's a shame there's nothing like that in 4e. I mean I can understand why they didn't, I just hope WotC puts some kind of support for having followers someday.

Couldn't you enslave a few minions? Just call them henchman. :smallbiggrin:

warrl
2009-06-06, 03:15 AM
Personally I favor having a system that gives some core rules for combat and leaves everything else wide open to direct game master control and player imagination.
It's really good for the players to have no way of guessing whether or not something is likely to work - unless it's combat-related. </sarcasm>


Not only does your party fighter have more options in combat than he did in 3.x, but now he can compose those glorious war-ballads you always wanted him to but couldn't due to Perform being cross-class.
Actually, Perform is STILL not available to fighters. The change is that it is now not available to anyone else either.

(On the other hand, the closest approximation of a paladin's mount is available to any character, regardless of class or alignment, who can raise the 13,000 gold.)

I am not impressed ...

... at the same time, it is ALSO not as lame as some people are making it out to be. It is still possible to create differentiated characters. Perhaps slightly more difficult than in 3.5, but not much more.

Atcote
2009-06-06, 04:56 AM
I argue with the thread's initial arguement on the basis that it was Baldur's Gate, which used the AD&D 2 system, that got me interested in fantasy role playing, and then I started playing 3rd edition, eventually moving up to 3.5, and then striking out on my own and getting the 4th edition books.
The point to the arguement? The past editions, to me, support the preceding games, and are different games in comparsion with each other. If 3.5 never existed, 4th edition (which I enjoy) would probably not be any more fun to those players.

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-06, 03:42 PM
Actually, Perform is STILL not available to fighters. The change is that it is now not available to anyone else either.

Technically you are right, but really, um, no? The chain of thought seems to be something like;
"Okay, so you need a skill to perform, do you? That's right, Bard's can't sing, or play guitar. They don't have a skill telling them they can, so they can't."

This just isn't the case anymore. the reality is, (or should be) more like

PC; Okay, so I'm whiling away my time during our short rest, so my Fighter, Jimi, Pulls out his Lute and plays a little quietly.
DM; Sure. The music drifts weirdly through the forest clearing.

Okay, so how about the old function of perform?

DM; But oh no, what's this? The noise has alarmed a Mother Bear, and she's charging the party! What do you do?
PC; I'm going to attempt to lull the bear's anger by playing a particularly soothing melody.
DM; Okay, you can try that, as the bear is a little way away, but she's gaining quickly. This's going to be a hard check, though. Roll my a Charisma check, we'll see how well you can play, eh Jimi?
PC; Oh man, am I glad I didn't dump Cha! Ha. *rolls* Natural 17, eh? Cool. I rock out for 19 points of bear soothing virtuosity!
DM; The bear slows to a walk, no longer charging....Then notices you and your lute, rears up and roars at you. Roll initiative, Jimi. Not quite high enough to sooth the savage beast, I'm afraid. ;)

Okay, so, well. A fighter isn't likely to have great Cha, but by what I recall of the dm guidelines, a hard first level task would probably sit about 20 or so. A charismatic, dramatic type would be much more likely to succeed on such a roll. Of course, the player could also have argued that they are treating the universal language of music, (or interprative dance?) as a diplomacy check to indicate to the bear, non-verbally, that they aren't a threat to her, or her cubs. That'd make it a skill based check, and it suggests adding 5 points or so to the difficulty in comparison, I think, so if you aren't trained in Diplomancy, you'd not benefit very much. :)

Really, the improvising rules are robust enough in 4th, even if they are only 1 page. The key is merely Dming it in an interesting and engaging way.

Not following you on the paladin's mount thing, btw. Some mount summoning item, I'm assuming? >_> I don't see the problem.

Panda-s1
2009-06-06, 04:16 PM
Okay, so, well. A fighter isn't likely to have great Cha, but by what I recall of the dm guidelines, a hard first level task would probably sit about 20 or so. A charismatic, dramatic type would be much more likely to succeed on such a roll. Of course, the player could also have argued that they are treating the universal language of music, (or interprative dance?) as a diplomacy check to indicate to the bear, non-verbally, that they aren't a threat to her, or her cubs. That'd make it a skill based check, and it suggests adding 5 points or so to the difficulty in comparison, I think, so if you aren't trained in Diplomancy, you'd not benefit very much. :)

Really, the improvising rules are robust enough in 4th, even if they are only 1 page. The key is merely Dming it in an interesting and engaging way.

Actually, DC for hard ability checks is 15. It used to be 20 if it was a skill check, but they changed it to the unmodified DC 'cause, well, not having the advantage of skill training kinda sucks :/

But this is why I love the new skill system. No more defining every action you can do, and the skills are broad enough to cover a whole lot.

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-06, 04:20 PM
Actually, DC for hard ability checks is 15. It used to be 20 if it was a skill check, but they changed it to the unmodified DC 'cause, well, not having the advantage of skill training kinda sucks :/

But this is why I love the new skill system. No more defining every action you can do, and the skills are broad enough to cover a whole lot.

Ah, right. Via the Errata thing? I really should read that, as I've got it all printed off since sometime last year. Heh. Not like my players tend to actually do much page-42 stuff, really, though.

Thajocoth
2009-06-06, 04:44 PM
Technically you are right, but really, um, no? The chain of thought seems to be something like;
"Okay, so you need a skill to perform, do you? That's right, Bard's can't sing, or play guitar. They don't have a skill telling them they can, so they can't."

This just isn't the case anymore. the reality is, (or should be) more like

PC; Okay, so I'm whiling away my time during our short rest, so my Fighter, Jimi, Pulls out his Lute and plays a little quietly.
DM; Sure. The music drifts weirdly through the forest clearing.

Okay, so how about the old function of perform?

DM; But oh no, what's this? The noise has alarmed a Mother Bear, and she's charging the party! What do you do?
PC; I'm going to attempt to lull the bear's anger by playing a particularly soothing melody.
DM; Okay, you can try that, as the bear is a little way away, but she's gaining quickly. This's going to be a hard check, though. Roll my a Charisma check, we'll see how well you can play, eh Jimi?
PC; Oh man, am I glad I didn't dump Cha! Ha. *rolls* Natural 17, eh? Cool. I rock out for 19 points of bear soothing virtuosity!
DM; The bear slows to a walk, no longer charging....Then notices you and your lute, rears up and roars at you. Roll initiative, Jimi. Not quite high enough to sooth the savage beast, I'm afraid. ;)

Okay, so, well. A fighter isn't likely to have great Cha, but by what I recall of the dm guidelines, a hard first level task would probably sit about 20 or so. A charismatic, dramatic type would be much more likely to succeed on such a roll. Of course, the player could also have argued that they are treating the universal language of music, (or interprative dance?) as a diplomacy check to indicate to the bear, non-verbally, that they aren't a threat to her, or her cubs. That'd make it a skill based check, and it suggests adding 5 points or so to the difficulty in comparison, I think, so if you aren't trained in Diplomancy, you'd not benefit very much. :)

Really, the improvising rules are robust enough in 4th, even if they are only 1 page. The key is merely Dming it in an interesting and engaging way.

Not following you on the paladin's mount thing, btw. Some mount summoning item, I'm assuming? >_> I don't see the problem.

I'd actually use the monster's will in this case instead since it's a flat ability score instead of a skill. Soothe beast with music: Cha vs Will. If the players tack on a couple nature checks, they might make a woodland friend.

fusilier
2009-06-06, 06:32 PM
Lol. Fair enough!



This isn't quite what I meant.

The "balance" problem with 3.Xe is not that PCs were more, or less, powerful than monsters. You are correct that that is something for an individual DM to account for.

The problem was that some PCs (such as Cindy/God wizards and DMM persist clerics) were much more powerful than other PCs (such as sword and board fighters and monks). That's inherently difficult for a DM to address, because challenges are either too hard for the weak PCs or too easy for the strong PCs.

A friend of mine explained to me what you meant in the original post, and I can see how that could be frustrating. Although he seemed to indicate that there are people who would disagree with you. I can't get involved because I clearly don't understand the situation. However, if it's difficult (though not impossible) to come up with appropriate challenges to a certain parties I can see where that can be a problem.

In my GURPS campaigns usually the people who are next to useless in combat (a la NERF in your example), usually are the ones that advance the plot the most! Even in combat they seem to fun, even if they are ineffectual. But GURPS allows tons of non-combat related skills.

My comment about it becoming more "closed" is still true. It seems to me to be even more rigorously defined then earlier systems.

Re. 2nd ed. AD&D and Tournaments-
Somebody at sometime, somewhere, posted the introduction to the DMG for 2nd ed. AD&D. It said something to the effect, that the rules as written are intended to be used for tournaments, but feel free to change them to your liking. So they were encouraging DM's in non-formal settings to tweak the system.

D&D has never been my preferred rpg, because as a system it's complicated and at the same time limited. One of the things I liked about 3rd edition, is that it had a bunch more skills, although access to those skills for certain character types usually involved multi-classing. Anyway, it's clearly a matter of personal preferences.

shadzar
2009-06-06, 07:07 PM
Re. 2nd ed. AD&D and Tournaments-
Somebody at sometime, somewhere, posted the introduction to the DMG for 2nd ed. AD&D. It said something to the effect, that the rules as written are intended to be used for tournaments, but feel free to change them to your liking. So they were encouraging DM's in non-formal settings to tweak the system.

Nothing to see here move along....


At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.
At the beginning of the first Dungeon Master Guide, Gary Gygax stressed that each of us, working from a common base, would make the AD&D game grow in a variety of different directions. That is more true today than ever. Don't be afraid of experimentation, but do be careful. As a Dungeon Master, you have great power, and "with great power comes great responsibility." Use it wisely.

David "Zeb" Cook
2/9/89

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

:smallwink: